Ubaldo Jimenez Detained in AZ As Illegal

I read your ideas and they're all well and good but, again, aside from some poppycock excuse about how "we're better than that" you can't give me a good reason why we shouldn't have a national ID. What harm does it cause to carry one around? Is it such an inconvenience?

You keep spouting some "this is America!" bullshit but you're not telling me why this is such a bad thing. You say it's terrible that people be required to carry an ID under threat of jail but you're jumping through hoops with that argument.

Not carrying your ID would be akin to not carrying your license while driving. You get a ticket, have to go to court, get to prove you have one then and there.

The problem in this country is people have this bullshit attitude that sacrificing a teeny, tiny bit of their "freedom" (And I want to reiterate the quotes around that word because nearly EVERYONE already carries an ID anyway) somehow goes against the fundamentals this country was built on.

That's a stretch and you know it.

You say it won't do anything to stop illegal immigration but I bet you it does. If you require every person cashing a check to have their National ID on file with the bank, boom, there are most workers.

If you then levy harsh punishments on those who hire illegals, boom, there go the hiring of illegals.

No jobs=no illegals. Period. End of story.

 

So the magical national ID is forge-proof? Can't get one with a stolen identity? Any illegal immigrant can have a full complement of IDs right now in a few hours for a few hundred bucks.

And no, I don't think it's a stretch to say that the ideals of our country didn't include carrying ID everywhere so the government can always identify us immediately. Again, we don't answer to the government; it answers to us. The scenario you are suggesting is a hallmark of fascism. There is a reason the Arizona "show me your papers" law is being constantly compared to the Nazis. It's because that's the kind of society that issues national IDs to keep the wrong people out. If you had even a vague understanding of world history or world politics you would understand this.

 

In theory, the ID would be forge-proof. Or, at least a lot harder to duplicate than the current ones people have. Perhaps a bar code police could scan? Something similar? I'm open to suggestions.

And as I said above, you're pretending like IDs are something new. They're not. People all over the country are currently carrying them around, as we speak, and have been doing so for decades. Last I checked, we hadn't turned facist yet.

But no, a different ID totally would do that. Yep, if we had a Federal ID, the Nazi's win. :

People compare the Arizona law to Nazis because they're idiots. Plain and simple.

If you can't tell the difference between being forced to carry an ID and killing six million people of a different religion then, fella, you need a lot more than a history lesson.

 

Somebody here needs to bone up on the philosophical underpinnings of their "inalienable/unalienable rights."

Read some Rousseau, some Locke, some Hobbes. Learn where the founders got their ideas about "freedom."

As an American, my rights descend from a higher authority than government, and I have every expectation that the government will leave me the fuck alone.

 

And how's that working out for you?

Just in reading this post, I can tell you A.) Have access to the internet and, as such, likely either have a job or live with someone who does. Therefore, you not only were (likely) forced to show ID to get said job, you also have to pay taxes. Also, unless you've got a well and live on a farm, I imagine you're using tap water to shower with, water regulated by federal mandates to keep a certain standard.

You also likely get your food from the supermarket, complete with FDA approval.

But, no, the government has no effect on your life as it is right now and a National ID sure would change that.

 

Young schizo is aquitting himself very well of late.

 

If you're just going to reject out of hand any philosophical reasoning for rejecting your idea, it's a little silly to repeatedly ask for reasons. I might as well say "Rejecting the idea that it would help authorities discover who illegal immigrants are, do you have any reasons why it might help combat illegal immigration?"

I'm not anti-government in any way, and your attempt to paint myself and others in this thread as such would be as silly as if I tried to accuse you of being racist for the way you are willing to trample fundamental freedoms in an attempt to combat immigration. We can both be better than that.

The government has certain rights and responsibilities and so do I. Their rights include the regulation of the economy, which is why I have to provide proof of my right to work. (Incidentally, I could provide them with a private-school identification card and a birth certificate, the former not being government issued and the latter not being a form of identification). Their rights do not extend to requiring me to justify my existence to them on demand for any reason they see fit, which is what a mandatory-carry national ID amounts to. There's good, historical reasons why they don't have that power, and I don't consider the immigration problem in this country to be so severe as to grant the government that power.

 

Hey, now, let's keep church and state separate. Don't push your religious beliefs on me.

 

It's been stated to you *repeatedly* that those of us opposed to your idea don't consider the existence of IDs to be onerous. The distinction between identification and mandatory identification has been laid out. The fact that you still try to paint this as people disliking the very existence of government-issued identification is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

 

Never mind, dude. You're not reading what anyone else writes and have no understanding of basic political philosophy.

 

Rick, you've been consistent throughout, but this debate has been enjoyable to see people who normally pimp the benefits of big government (or mock those who have a problem with it) get all worked up about a national ID card.

 

I don't have a problem with government being big within its appropriate sphere. There are places the government belongs, and inside those places, sometimes the appropriate amount of influence is large.

But the principal of limited government, on which all of Western Civilization is founded, still applies. The government is granted certain powers by the people, and only those powers, because all of human history has proven to us that power will *always* tempt the people who wield it toward corruption.

Only a very young person or a fool would reject any possibility of government abusing an unprecedented power.